30th of June strikes.

[uk_unbeliever]

ok so by that public sector employees should have a massive pay cut till they manage to make their service profitable?

which specific parts of the public sector are you referring to? All my experience of working in the public sector is within areas with statutory duties. Duties to provide a service which simply cannot be compared to a profit making company.

 

[Biohazard]

Because the private sector works on REAL economics! It is not backed by government and supported by the tax payer... If a business can not afford to pay a level of benefit then it either reduces those costs, makes people redundant or if its stupidly continues to pay then goes bust and EVERYONE losses their jobs..

Or it steals money from the state or its employees contributions to continue in a lot of cases...

What is the alternative, the public sector works on FAKE economics?

Do you really know what you are talking about here in terms of overview, relationship and requirement?

Most private sector companies got rid of final salary schemes years ago, most private sector companies got rid of the sort of schemes the public sector are now being offered years ago.. most private sector business operate much worse schemes than what's now on offer to the public sector..

Contradictory statement.

If we no longer have final salary scheme for new entrants, how on earth are they being offered something the private sector got rid of years ago?

This race to the bottom argument smacks of idiocity, why are we all pointing to each other going 'he needs to get less'.

Can't we all support each other in getting more?

I can quite see that the public sector workers are upset about there pensions... hell I was upset when my final salary scheme was converted to a 4% employer contribution!! but frankly the economics of these schemes simply don't add up and I would much rather I kept my job... I can see very little sympathy coming from the general public for the unions when everyone else is making sacrifices and reducing there own standards of living...

I take it civil servants aren't the general public either then and that they don't make sacrifices or have to reduce living standards in recession either?

The costing is a serious issue, but Governments shouldn't make promises they cannot keep.

 

[Biohazard]

Inflation effects everyone, however not getting a pay rise does not equal a pay cut.

Are you daft or just acting it?



When inflation bites and it exceeds your wage increase what does this mean?

That magic money is going to fly off the magic trees and make everything better?

Inflation makes your current money worth less, not more.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If these private entities cannot afford their own schemes and need money from successful businesses they should no longer be trading.

Haha - spot on.

I'm fed up of paying my tax so these lazy, poor performing, private sector layabouts can sponge money off me. GET A REAL JOB!

 

[Biohazard]

Haha - spot on.

I'm fed up of paying my tax so these lazy, poor performing, private sector layabouts can sponge money off me. GET A REAL JOB!

Funny how it's never mentioned though.

Yes, lets just get all pent up about scummy public workers and don't let silly little things like facts get in the way of a good rammy.

 

[Streeteh]

Meh, misquoted

 

[Biohazard]

It really is ingenious.

Crap on the private sector, turn them into a baying mob and set them on the public sector, everyone dislikes and distrusts each other and the only people who win are what used to be the capitalist class.

Great we aren't a bunch of idiots who have let an imaginary line take over from what is really pertinent or important at all, are we?

 

[uk_unbeliever]

It really is ingenious.

Crap on the private sector, turn them into a baying mob and set them on the public sector, everyone dislikes and distrusts each other and the only people who win are what used to be the capitalist class.

Great we aren't a bunch of idiots who have let an imaginary line take over from what is really pertinent or important at all, are we?

This is spot on

 

[rotters]

There does seem to be a snobbery Even on these forums from those in a "private" sector roles over "public" sector roles. A kind of "im better that you cause im in a real job as im contributing to the economics of the country"....doe annoy me greatly.

 

[Freakbro]

Were did it get the miners?

There's no shame in standing up and fighting for what you believe in and losing.

This is kind of short sighted response I'd expect from a trade unionist member or supporter (I say supporter knowing you are priv sec worker].

But if I hadn't told you you would have probably assumed I was a public servant/unionist

well said Pneumonic

I prefer the point from uk_believer

When times were good I don't remember moaning my ass off at my mates in the private sector getting decent pay rises, bonuses and other perks like company cars, getting really lucrative over time and not to mention the ones who were self-employed avoiding as much tax as possible! All the while I was plugging along at a below inflation 2-2.5% annual wage increase- I didn't moan much because it was the contract I signed up for- but the 'deal' I signed up for included a reasonable pension as well.

It's all about what you signed up for, that's all and not changing the rules half way down the line.

Sure, change things for new starters, but just because they (ie: the government mixed in with a healthy dose of the private (banking) sector) ballsed things up right royally, doesn't mean they can just come and override and renage on contracts already made.

Funny how we couldn't stop Fred the Shreds humongous parachute & pension payout because "it was in his contract"

 

[Biohazard]

There's no shame in standing up and fighting for what you believe in and losing.

One caveat though.

It left a lot of people bitter and cynical and deflated.

Some miners found it hard to support a union in industrial action again, if they got another job that is.

 

[Loosecannon]

This is now annoying...

This shouldn't just be public sector strikes.

Different parts of the public sector are striking due to different circumstances.

Teachers currently pay 6.4% - and the pension fund is sustainable. Still the government want 3 changes- up the payments, reduce the final wage, and work longer - none of which they are willing to negotiate on.

It doesn't make sense.


Other areas are in different positions - Civil servants are on 1.5% to 3% contributions - and that is not sustainable.


It's not the fact things are changing that are causing the strikes, its the lack of negotiation or any compromise.

 

[Duke]

It's not the fact things are changing that are causing the strikes, its the lack of negotiation or any compromise.

I gather the Gov has been in talks with the Unions, but they keep pushing for strike action whilst still in discussions?

Hmm. Ignorant statement is ignorant.

There are twice as many private sector pension schemes being subsidised from the state than the public liability.

Instead of this inane barrage of mis informed assaults, the private sector would do well to sort out it's own back yard before it throws stones at the public.

If these private entities cannot afford their own schemes and need money from successful businesses they should no longer be trading.

I'm no expert, so if that's the case then fine, sort them out too if needed. Got any examples of them though (genuine Q)?

Either way, people are living longer, things like this can't stay static.

 

[Loosecannon]

Well after Danny Alexander on the BBC this morning who basically said "We have made our position clear, it is not going to change, and in fact it could only get worse" - things do not look like they are progressing.

Headteachers union was so annoyed they are balloting to strike too - something they had not yet done because of the negotiations - but they feel the governments stance this morning was inflexible and they were not taking the negotiations seriously.

 

[Duke]

Only caught the end of the news, but I gather Labour weren't actually attacking the policies laid out, which means they know it has to be done.

 

[Biohazard]

I gather the Gov has been in talks with the Unions, but they keep pushing for strike action whilst still in discussions?

Because the talks have got no where in many respects.

The union are being unreasonable in certain aspects, as are the government in others.

It takes two to tango, and to singularly blame one for as we are now is either born from lack of knowledge or putting the blinkers on, ideological or otherwise.

That goes for everyone really. I'm a trade unionist, but there are too many ill informed pychophants in the Union itself.

Westminster really isn't good at well anything, I'm suprised people blame the unions without looking at that pile of steaming horse manure.

It is discredited, archaic, slow, inneficient and prone to making huge policy mistakes.

In my department alone there have been three U turns on quite important guidance and policy, you want to tear your hair out.

If they listened to you first without just instructing and demanding they may not be so suprised when it turns out their policy is unworkable at all, and in order to save some sort of face an unhappy medium is then re-established so 'progress' has been made regardless of if it is going to actually return a yield or improvement.

As I said before, words like 'Consultation' in Westminster are an absolute bastardisation of the dictionary reference.

I'm no expert, so if that's the case then fine, sort them out too if needed. Got any examples of them though (genuine Q)?

Either way, people are living longer, things like this can't stay static.

No that would break confidentiallity.

No, sort the private sector out as a priority the effects and cost are far heavier. Both need reform.

But yet again something normally completely overlooked by well everyone, politicians, the press etc.

The aging population isn't the problem with the public pensions, it was lack of costing and prudence in the first place.

Would you set up a direct debit, and then a few months down the line decide you were not going to stump up the cash in the account for it?

No you wouldn't, so why should the Government?

The aging population is going to be a massive issue for Britain, regardless of which pigeon hole you sit in.

 

[Fangman]

Yikes. Fortantly it seems to be mostly back-end stuff. Transport / post strikes scare me more...

 

[Admiral Huddy]

There's no shame in standing up and fighting for what you believe in and losing.

You are absolutely are right.. but sometimes you have to look at things face value. As I said, personally, continuity of work and income is far more important than pride.

 

[uk_unbeliever]

You are absolutely are right.. but sometimes you have to look at things face value. As I said, personally, continuity of work and income is far more important than pride.

I'm sure that everyone would agree that this is important and is a reason why a lot of union members didn’t vote, but at the same time I see a lot of people who know that there will always be the (ridiculous in my view) argument of 'well why can't the public sector make a profit' stirring up the masses to have a go at the public sector. If this continues while conditions get worse and worse as soon as the economy is on its feet there is a risk that vital services will no longer attract decent candidates (insert reply about slack services and jobsworths here). It's this concern that is on my mind when I'm thinking about standing up for working conditions, not really for myself here and now, I could get a better paid job in the private sector (or at least could have before the fat cats almost destroyed our economy), but for the future of decent services.
Maybe it’s working on the front line with real people that makes you think like this, and possibly I’d think differently if I had kids to support (I.e I’d be more inclined to think more selfishly- basically what the 'divide and conquer' govt policy relies on to perpetuate our individualistic society), but thinking about it a key thing of nearly all the union members I know (bar the ones who see it as an insurance policy) isn't militancy but a desire to stick up for what they believe in.

So basically, I agree with what you're saying in a round about way, but that you can look out for yourself or your services but it shouldn't ahve to come at the expensive of rolling over

 

[Dolph]

There's no shame in standing up and fighting for what you believe in and losing.

Well, apart from when it does significant damage to your communities, the trade union movement in general and loses significant public support, then it's just dumb.

It's all about what you signed up for, that's all and not changing the rules half way down the line.

Sure, change things for new starters, but just because they (ie: the government mixed in with a healthy dose of the private (banking) sector) ballsed things up right royally, doesn't mean they can just come and override and renage on contracts already made.

They are honouring what is already accrued, what is changing is what will accrue moving forward. Why is that wrong?